Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Gobus


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Henry Gobus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An extremely detailed, very promotional biography that is primarily concerned with touting the merits of a crank theory on evolution (seriously - it's built on perceived differences in "emotional attachment" between, say, insects and monotremes). No independent reviews of said work, no indication of personal notability sufficient for any of WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF, and 95% unsourced. As this was apparently created complete with tags from 2011, it must be a recreation of some kind and could probably be speedied, but I can't find the original, so putting this here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clearly a PROMO article, subject and his "theory" have basically no independent recognition. JoelleJay (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nomination. An article that starts by saying the subject is "the only person who besides Charles Darwin has provided a complete and extensive process of evolution" needs to provide something to back up such a claim.  Instead, much of the article is taken up with blow-by-blow descriptions of arguments he had with subject experts.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Editor Gavroslo probably should have used some citations to make their case. Possibly Henry Gobus is notable, but this wall of text lacking citations with grandiose statements in the lead and charts isn't doing it for me. I'm not keen on salting this but until someone neutral starts from the beginning, this has to go. So sad - there is such a nice photo. Sgerbic (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. clearly PROMO and fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 01:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am Henry Gobus, Psychologist and author of the book Human Ascent. The book was published in Australia in 2009, ISBN [978-0-646-51316-4]. The Copyright is to Henry Gobus and the illustrations in the article are illustrations in the book. The book is fully referenced. I understand that I have to update the article but please work with me. The book has two independent reviews. One from Mark Ruge, editor for Connect Magazine and one from Consultant Psychiatrist Dr Daniel Gileppa. The book explains evolution on a step by step basis. Many Darwinists really don't like a publication because they oppose anything that does not conform to Darwin's ideas. The book Human Ascent challenges Darwin's ideas in every aspect. In short, the process of evolution is not too difficult to comprehend. Human Ascent argues that instinct reduces over the entire course of evolution and emotional attachment increases. The book also argues that we do not have to look at bones from a hundred million years ago to understand the process of evolution because all the descendants of the different species are alive today. The book in simple terms states that single-cell organisms arrived on earth 3.5 billion years ago. Insects were the first animals 450 million years ago, reptiles followed the animals, Birds followed the reptiles, monotremes followed the birds, marsupials followed the monotremes, then the mammals and finally humans. Insects have the highest level of instinct and the least emotional attachment. Insects do not pair up and they abandon their eggs and offspring. The reptiles followed the insects and reptiles do pair up. For instance, the blue tongued lizard mates for life. For instance, crocodiles bury and protect their eggs and care for their offspring for a short time after birth. A significant increase in emotional attachment to their offspring compared to the insects. But the reptiles do not feed their young. The birds follow the reptiles. Instead of becoming better at surviving animals actually become more vulnerable as evolution progresses. The bird's body changed to warm-blooded. Birds use the warmth of their body to brood their eggs. In addition, birds feed their young. That the birds use their body to brood their eggs and share nourishment with their offspring is an increase of emotional attachment to their young. Instinct has reduced in the birds because unlike the reptiles and the insects who are independent from birth, the birds follow the parents and copy and model of the parents to find food. Birds learn how to find food. The Monotremes follow the birds. The monotreme is also an egg layer but the monotreme does not have to find food lake the birds. The monotreme's body changed to produce milk for its offspring. The milk the monotreme produces oozes through her belly skin and is all the nourishment her young requires. Offspring feeding of the parental body is an increase in emotional attachment. The body of the parents for the offspring is food. The marsupials follow the monotremes. The marsupial is not an egg layer. It has a pouch and instead of milk oozing through the belly skin the marsupial has developed nipples. Egg layers lay eggs not because it is advantageous or beneficial. Egg layers lay eggs because by laying eggs they are not burdened by the weight of an internally developing embryo. This means that egg layers can flee the nest and save themselves in time of danger. The marsupial is not an egg layer. But the marsupial gives birth to underdeveloped offspring only a few grams in weight. This means that the marsupial can still flee, without being burdened by the weight of an embryo developing to an advanced state. The mammals follow the marsupials. (I know that monotremes and marsupials are also classified as mammals). Young mammals develop in utero to an advanced level. Mammals are severely burdened by the weight of an internally developing embryo and active mammary glands. This is a simple continuous process of development. We do not have to be einstein to follow this progression. Many criticisms levelled against me are the numerous DNA and genetics that support Drwin. I argue that is only because they align all their arguments with Darwinism because there is not one other model of evolution to compare it too. We emerged from the primates because the primates have the greatest emotional attachment of any animal. The primates developed hands and arms. The primates were able to explore the body of their offspring with their hands foreign to any other animals. From this high level of emotional attachment, we emerged and we developed psychological intelligence. We walk upright and most significantly our thumbs oppose the four fingers. That our thumbs oppose the four fingers is because we have psychological intelligence. Animals have biological intelligence food and safety. Their intelligence can be satisfied. Psychological intelligence is affection for inanimate objects things. Because inanimate objects can not be consumed, they are only parts of our minds. We love them. This not only resulted in the numerous laws we have today to outline ownership of property, it delivers us with an intelligence that can never be satisfied. Therefore the knowledge gap between us and the animals forever widens. The primates are in the trees and we have the industrial revolution. The primates are in the trees and we global air travel. The primates are in the trees and we interplanetary travel. The primates are in the trees and we have computers. The primates are in the trees and we have the internet. The primates are in the trees and we have smartphones. The primates are in the trees because animals are prisoners to their instinct. In us instinct ( the will to live is at its possible lowest level). hence our suicides. Or suicide bombers. We are free to decide.I respectfully request that my article remains. Please help me to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. I submit that it is important to have people contemplate another view on evolution. It can only enhance us. I have a webpage with videos at henrygobus.com  It may help get a better understanding of what I am saying. In the end Darwinism is division and a struggle for survival fitness. My model is we become more loving creatures. Insects are independent at birth. Mammals are born with their eyes closed. Completely dependent on the parents for survival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:f0f9:a700:c5af:a057:1088:82b6 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's so much wrong with that I'd have trouble figuring out where to start - I can come up with counter-examples for virtually every sentence in the above without even trying. So I'll just stick to the top level by noting that teleological arguments in biology need better, not worse, theoretical backing than procedurals ones, and leave it at that. Please convince the outside world first that this is a theory to be taken seriously, then Wikipedia can follow suit. It doesn't work the other way round. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, obviously. Besides the lack of academic notability (WP:PROF), this is also problematic with respect to WP:FRINGE, which demands mainstream coverage of non-mainstream views. Without that coverage, we cannot have a sufficiently neutral article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't delete - All raised issues of for instance insects have less emotional attachment and monotremes have more and marsupials and mammals are easily referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:F0F9:A700:C5AF:A057:1088:82B6 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Henry Gobus - The book Human Ascent does describe an entirely new concept of evolution. To place a new model of evolution in the public eye is always difficult. Darwin was ridiculed for his idea that we evolved from the primates. For Human Ascent now to claim that Darwin's ideas are flawed. Or that Human Ascent completely provides a different perpsective on evolution. We are 150 years on. We will always see more. New perspectives. Help get this article up to date. Please!


 * Delete. Promotional, not remotely notable. My nose also smells a G12, but I was unable to find where this was all copied from (I did poke around at https://www.henrygobus.com/).-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 10:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - remember that this article is about the person, not the book or the theory. So we need to apply the notability criteria to the person, not to evaluate the merits of the theory.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - agree, but the article still utterly fails Wikipedia's biographical notability guidelines (WP:BIO). Deus et lex (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT the article is terrible and they don't meet any kind of notability guideline. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, promotional guidelines, the five issue templates the article has has (and I've seen more issues there, too) and common sense. The fact that this is extremely long and extremely detailed (including events and personal things that wouldn't be known unless Gobus either has an autobiography with this much detail or he wrote this himself) to the point that it transcribes a conversation between Gobus and Professor "Strawman" Prescott, and that this AfD got edited by the man himself (using this opportunity to plug his website and his theories in a massive wall of text) has to be, hands down, the funniest shit I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Funnier than that time a professor made an article on his own theory about math or something, and the entire thing was written and sourced by himself under his name. Bravo. AdoTang (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: While documenting this for historical purposes, I noticed that this article contains several first-person words from Gobus' perspective. It looks like this was either written by Gobus on a separate account (note the account that made this copy-pasted it and previously edited articles relating to Queensland, where Gobus is stated to live), copied from an unknown autobiographical source, or both. Just take this into consideration. AdoTang (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - completely fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF and it is clearly promotional. The claim of being equal to Darwin in terms of putting forward evolutionary theories, a claim that is sourced only by the book itself that claims to say that very thing, really takes the cake. Deus et lex (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Agree with AdoTang's summary. For the absence of doubt, I undertook a search via the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspapers (broader and deeper than google) and found a single citation to a 300 word article about the subject's book in The Cairns Post from 2010, which could arguably pass WP:CITE but fails the multiple requirement. So I tried to help but alas no dice. Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanispamcruftisement. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.